ArticleAnais brasileiros de dermatologia
Comparison of long term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in 150 mg and 300 mg doses in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.
Article in Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of two omalizumab dose-reduction strategies in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria during the control phase: standard dose maintenance therapy versus extended interval dose reduction.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a clinical condition that affects patients quality of life. Omalizumab is preferred in antihistamines resistant CSU cases. Urticaria activity score-7 (UAS-7) is a scale that shows the severity of the disease.
objectivesThe authors aimed to compare the long-term (60 months) efficacy and side effects of 150 mg and 300 mg doses of omalizumab in patients with CSU.
methods108 patients followed up at the clinic with the diagnosis of CSU were included. Omalizumab was started in patients who were resistant to conventional CSU treatment. Two groups were formed to receive 150 mg and 300 mg doses of omalizumab. Urticaria activity score (UAS-7), antihistamine usage, time to achieve disease-free stage, relapse after treatment, and side effects of omalizumab treatment were compared in the two groups.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding basal characteristics and laboratory findings. Average follow-up time was sixty months. UAS-7 scores were similar in the follow-up. There were no adverse events in both groups. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Retroactive design and single-center nature to reach a more significant number of patients. Lack of patients receiving the lowest dose 75 mg and the highest dose 600 mg of omalizumab. Absence of total body mass indexes of all patients. Besides, the use of distinct drugs may contribute to non confident results and is another limitation of this study.
conclusionSince there is no significant difference between 150-300 mg omalizumab doses regarding long-term treatment efficacy and side effects in CSU patients, starting treatment with a 150 mg dose may be suitable. In patients who do not respond to 150 mg, the omalizumab dose can be increased to 300 mg. It will prevent unpredictable dose and time-dependent complications and will be a cost-effective approach even in strong economies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.